Babu v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Kottampatti

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 12.02.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

1. Babu

2. Vijay

3. Prabhu . ..Petitioners/ Accused Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Inspector of Police, Kottampatti Police Station, Madurai District.

(Crime No.35 of 2026) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : M/s.B.Sudha Sathyanandh For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.Jerin Mathew PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.35 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/7

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 296(b), 118(1), 324(3), 303(2), 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.35 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners had abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and attacked him with wooden log and also snatched 1⁄2 sovereign of gold from the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they are no way connected with the alleged occurrence as stated by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

2/7

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that there is no previous case pending against the petitioners and the jewels has not been recovered. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/Intervenor submitted that the petitioners had snatched gold ring from the defacto complainant. Further, the learned counsel for the de facto complainant has produced a videograph showing that the petitioners damaged the property. Hence, he strongly opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that there is no previous case against the petitioners and the petitioners have accepted to deposit some amount to the credit of crime number, hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. 3/7

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, on condition that each of the petitioner shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with one surety, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

(a) the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b ) each of the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the credit of Crime No.35 of 2026 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur. On such deposit, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, shall accept the sureties furnished by the petitioners. After receipt of entire amount, the learned 4/7

Judicial Magistrate, Melur, shall deposit the said amount in an interest bearing Fixed Deposit in any nationalized Bank initially for a period of one year and renew them periodically until the final order/Judgment is passed in the case in Crime No.35 of 2026. The learned Judicial Magistrate or Trial Court shall pass orders regarding entitlement of the said amount in its final order/Judgment.

(c) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

(d) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (e) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(f) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid 5/7

down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560] and;

(g) if the accused/petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS, 2023. (S S Y J) 12.02.2026 msrm To

1. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kottampatti Police Station, Madurai District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

6/7

S.SRIMATHY, J.

msrm

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.2863 of 2026 Date : 12.02.2026 7/7